Soubry’s Partner Threatens to Sue: My Response.

A solicitors letter appears. This could be interesting.

I wrote several months ago how in the last general election Soubry had received a donation from David Wilson, big cheese at Bell Pottinger, who are a pretty scummy unit, being secretly filmed claiming how they span reputations of oppressive regimes and could get access to Cameron’s inner circle. Nasty folks. They also specialise in dark-art campaigning, something the Tories will find essential in the run up to 2015. As their support base gets ever older (latest figures available suggest an average of 67) their ability to get the message out on the street is lacking. Thus, new tactics are needed. False-flag blogs, seeding google with keywords and running attacks on local criticism.

So it’s no surprise when the letter comes through from solicitors Browne Jacobson. Soubry has just lost a major battle with the Field Farm development in Stapleford, as the Government housing inspector ruled that Broxtowe’s allocation of the land was perfectly in line with policy. A huge blow to Soubry, who had hoped to at the very least earn a reprieve until the election had passed. No such luck.

Other tactics are therefore needed. Time to shut up anyone who might criticise the way she acted, or any links she has to it. I read the letter.

It’s a breathless bluster of bullying balls, asking how dare I attack Anna’s partner, former director at builder’s Persimmon, what with having an MBE etc. But it demands action on three points:

1. You wrongly describe him as an ‘exec’implying that he is engaged full time with a building company. the only position he has held is that of non-exec director.

2. You say that he is an ‘exec at shonky Builders Persimmon’

The Oxford Dictionaries define “shonky” as “dishonest, unreliable or illegal, especially in a decious way”

The clear meaning of the words is that Persimmon is dishonest, unreliable or illegal especially in a devious way and that Mr Davidson as an alleged employee of that company is also ‘dishonest, unreliable or illegal especially in a devious way’.

3. You wrongly suggest that he may have a conflict of interest over the way “councils could have their ability to control development removed if enough local controversy was evoked thus leaving the same areas at the mercy of developers who could march in unimpeded as Persimmon had already done”.

The reference to “conflict of interests” has the clear meaning that Mr Davison (sic) has engaged in some improper conduct exploiting his connection with Ms Soubry, MP which is exploited by him and Persimmon to make an unlawful or improper gain.

Let’s deal with these in order.

1. Calling Davidson an ‘exec’. I’ll concede this one as an honest oversight, he was exactly a non-executive director with Persimmon. I’ll stick a fiver in a charity box and retract that one, and sincerely apologise for getting that mixed up, and change it in the relevant piece.

2.Persimmon are shonky. I’m standing by that one. They are shonky builders, as in the urban dictionary definition :

Of poor or low quality

Or the Collins definition

unreliable, unsound

or, indeed the one they refer to, in the OED,


Interestingly, the OED gives the following example for usage

we need to rid the building industry of these shonkies quickly

I stand by calling Persimmon ‘shonky’, in all the above definitions, fully and will not retract that. Let’s check their track record. BBC Watchdog ran a report on them after receiving numerous complaints. You can read the full story here.

In 2005 their shonky building were factors in the death of a four year old boy, after inadequate fittings were applied to a mantlepiece lintel. Full story here.

You can find loads more online, indeed, their Wikipedia page has got a whole section devoted to ‘Criticisms’. My favourite has to be the building of a garage that was too narrow to get a car in. Shonky, shonky, shonky.

3. I at no point explicitly state a conflict of interest, and if the article in question is read in context this is obvious. I did note that Persimmon had benefitted from the policy of removing local authorities power to allocate land if they fail to find appropriate sites. Their interpretation is subjective and based on an exceedingly, errr, shonky, premise. To quote another nasty politician ‘You may think that, I couldn’t possibly comment’.

The letter then goes on to make a series of threats. They demand

1. A full and complete apology which will be published on your website for the same period as the original posting in terms to be approved by our client.
2. An undertaking that you will not at any time in the future make any further false, defamatory or abusive remarks against our client.
3. A contribution to a charity of our client’s choosing by way of damages.
4. Payment our (sic) client’s costs incurred remedying this defamation. Presently, our costs are £1,500 plus VAT.

Again, lets work through these.

1. I will apologise for calling Davison an exec director rather than a non-exec director. I’ll change that, an oversight similar to the one where you get his name wrong in the letter. I stand by all other points in the context it was written.

2. I will write, as always, within the law and will continue to write about Anna Soubry and Neil Davidson if a story sufficiently in the public interest arises. Anything else would be a dereliction of my duty to bring information about our elected representatives and their connections. As Anna Soubry styles herself as a champion of ‘Uncommonly free speech’, as well as a former NUJ member, I am sure she will fully endorse this stance.

3. I will make a £5 donation to Oxfam tomorrow for the ‘non-exec’ / ‘exec’ mix up. I hope that this is an adequate amount to a very good cause.

4. I refuse to pay your client’s costs, and I would suggest you offer him a refund for the inability to spell his name, a discourtesy at the least, sheer unprofessionalism at worst. As I am not someone who can afford an indoor heated swimming pool and a huge house as your client can, and last time I checked I had £1.99 in my current account and about £3 in my change jar, I am unable to afford such exorbitant fees you charge and your client can pay.

I would also like to enquire how you found my address? Did Anna Soubry provide this?

I am also curious about other elements of the article you are critical of. In the same humorous (again, subjective) vein I accused Soubry of explicitly lying. Is that ok to state?

I’ll be in touch with Private Eye tomorrow to have a chat about this, and the Nottingham Post are keen to run something on it. Things are getting interesting, keep reading for more as it happens. And if this blog gets forced down, you’ll know why.

15 thoughts on “Soubry’s Partner Threatens to Sue: My Response.

  1. Peter Kobryn says:

    Justice for the Beestonia One ! ….I’m in..

    Private Eye would be an excellent party to get interested in this bullying nonsense you are on the receiving end of

  2. Chris says:

    It is intimidation and also not the first time that Soubry and her partner have sent their solicitors after people over innocuous comments.

    The solicitor’s letter also shows what is wrong with the legal profession. £1,500 to read your article and send you a letter! That is a over a month’s wages for some people.

  3. Kirstie says:

    My husband and I would like to express our support for you. The letter is incredibly intimidating but is also extremely ill-judged and does Anna Soubry absolutely no favours in light of the forthcoming election – they would have been better off either taking it on the chin or debating it in your blog or wherever. I hope that Private Eye pick this up as do the national press, this campaign is starting to get nasty (what else to expect from the Nasty Party!) and that’s not what we want for Broxtowe.
    £1500 for a letter where they can’t even spell the client’s name!

  4. stevebarber says:

    Matt – although I think Oxfam is an excellent charity and would benefit from your £5, perhaps you should consider this quote from Hansard (18 October 2011; 09:30);

    “Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): ………At the outset, I will make what some might call a declaration of interest, although it is not. It is important to put on the record that my partner—that is the appropriate word, although it is one I do not particularly like to use—is a director of Persimmon and sits on its board. …….”

    From which and reading your letter the conclusion reached would surely be is one of the following:

    Anna Soubry has a new partner who is not a director of Persimmon.
    Anna Soubry’s partner is no longer a director of Persimmon
    Anna Soubry misled the House on 11 October 2011.

    Perhaps clarification would be in the public interest.

  5. stevebarber says:

    Sorry last point should read”…….on 18 October 2011″ My error and a donation to Oxfam is on the way!

  6. simon cross says:

    Matt, I can only presume Anna Soubry has ‘OK’d such bullying and intimidation. No-one partnered up to second in command at the Ministry of Defence (God help us, how do these third rate politicians manage it?) without getting her permission to launch this attack. Soubry has the manner of a bully in her one-to-one interactions and clearly her partner Davidson and his shonky company/solicitors also like to flex their muscles. This will backfire on her in the run up to the GE. Steve Barber’s last post is bang on the money by the way.

  7. simon cross says:

    Of course now Steve had added another I refer to the one before last!

  8. John says:

    Anna Soubry, I know you’ll be reading this, so as you post in every email that you send out :

    “she has a record of unusually free speech” Simon Carr, The Independent… You are not the only one who has a right to free speech

    “a decent Conservative” Kevin McGuire, Daily Mirror… Whatever goodwill you gained from your recent promotion and campaign against housing developments on local greenbelt land has been wiped out by this foolish threatening letter that you have instructed your hired monkeys at Browne Jacobson to post to the founder / editor of this community blog.

    You are dealing with real people in the real world here, not the mollycoddled tax scroungers and associated hangers on in the Westminster bubble that you in habit.

    Cease and desist this legal action immediately. Apologise sincerely for this bullying and gross lack of judgement. Pay for all costs involved…

    and maybe, just maybe, this might be forgotten about come election time

  9. Jules says:

    Isn’t Sourby a qualified solicitor or barrister – surely she could have written the letter herself for free? Of course then it would not have been as threatening. It was a shame she was voted in over Nick in the first place – who was, and still is, totally committed to representing the community. I hope we get Nick back – regardless of party alignments he provides a much better service to the community than most other MP’s and especially Sourby, who in my experience, has failed to provide as good representation of Broxtowe as Nick. Though she has certainly achieved her career aspirations. Guess it all depends upon what your priorities are…. She is not a ‘servant leader’ – unlike Nick – I know which kind of leader I prefer, especially in politics.

    Good luck to you Matt – and I am sorry this has happened.

  10. Ellie Turpin says:

    On 1st January 2014 the new Defamation Act 2013 became law (1); Anna Soubry will be familiar with this legislation as she was on the committee for this bill in 2012-13.

    One of the key features of the bill is the new ‘serious harm threshold’ where claimants need to show that the statement has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. As pointed out in this Press Gazette article (2) “Libel actions against web-only publications are likely to fail if the page did not attract many clicks.” I believe that the blog post the solicitors letter refers too had only had a few hundred unique views. However, I understand from Matt, that this post, detailing the heavy handed, intimidating communication and extortionate claim for money has already received over a thousand views in less than 24 hours.

    Perhaps Mr Davidson, Ms Soubry and the partners of Browne Jacobson would like to spend a few minutes googling ‘The Streisand Effect’ before promptly referring themselves to Pressdram vs Arkell (1971).


  11. Clive says:

    Stick it to them Matt. The quality of their letter and its version of defamation law tells us everything we need to know about Browne Jacobson – thanks for saving us from wasting our money if ever we should need legal advice.

  12. Chris Smith says:

    Let’s face it none of us are that surprised. It just reinforces what we already knew. Can you imagine Nick doing this? QED.

  13. […] When I have previously flagged up this link, the Soubry- Davidsons have been FURIOUS. As reported last year, Davidson’s solicitors sent me a hugely intimidating legal letter demanding I withdraw the blog… […]

  14. […] the best way to make enemies. I can’t count the amount of times people have tried to sue me, including Soubry and her partner on many occasions – yet not one has ever taken me to court, and I have not backed down on a […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s